Veerashachari vs Suvarna @ Lalitha And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4028 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                        NC: 2023:KHC-K:4906
                                                          RPFC No. 200074 of 2023




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                                     RPFC NO. 200074 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      VEERESHACHARI
                      S/O LATE RAMALINGACHARI WADLU,
                      AGE: 44 YEARS,
                      OCC: GOLDSMITH AND BUSINESS,
                      RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.5/25,
                      MAMADATIPPANNA OIL MILL,
                      YEMMIGANUR, DISTRICT KURNOOL-518360.

                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI B K HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
                      1.   SUVARNA @ LALITHA
Digitally signed by        W/O VEERESHACHARI,
SACHIN
Location: HIGH             AGE: 37 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                           R/O: BRESTWARPER,
                           NEAR VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE,
                           UPPARWADI, RAICHUR-584103.

                      2.   ARCHANA D/O VEERESHACHARI,
                           AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

                           UNDER GUARDIAN OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
                           PETITIONER NO.1 - SUVARNA @ LALITHA
                           R/O BRESTWARPER,
                           NEAR VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE,
                           UPPARAWADI, RAICHUR-584103.
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-K:4906
                                    RPFC No. 200074 of 2023




3.   NEHARIKA D/O VEERESHACHARI,
     AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
     PETITIONER NO.1 - SUVARNA @ LALITHA,
     R/O. BRESTWARPER,
     NEAR VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE,
     UPPARAWADI, RAICHUR-584103.

4.   HARSHITA PRIYA D/O VEERESHACHARI,
     AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
     PETITIONER NO.1 - SUVARNA @ LALITHA,
     RESIDENT OF BRESTWARPER,
     NEAR VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE,
     UPPARAWADI, RAICHUR-584103.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, RAICHUR
IN CRL.MISC.NO.76/2017 DATED 12.7.2017 AND THE MATTER
BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR GIVING AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PETITIONER FOR LEAD EVIDENCE AND TO
CROSS EXAMINATION TO PETITIONER NO.1/RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

1. There is a delay of 1345 in filing this petition by the

husband. The husband states in his affidavit that the delay

in filing the revision petition was on the ground that the

counsel appearing for him had not informed about the

judgment. However, he also states in the very same

NC: 2023:KHC-K:4906 RPFC No. 200074 of 2023

paragraph that his wife had filed a criminal miscellaneous

petition in Crl.Misc.No.198/2017 seeking to enforce the

order of maintenance and he has also stated that he has

paid the maintenance amount from 03.06.2017 to till

31.12.2021 and the said miscellaneous was accordingly

closed. He also stated that another criminal miscellaneous

petition was filed in Crl.Misc.No.40/2023 claiming a sum of

`2,06,917/- and it was thereafter he became aware of the

order.

2. In my view, there is absolutely no ground to condone

the delay, since the petitioner admits that he has paid the

arrears of maintenance, even in respect of the property

after the disposal of the petition i.e., on 31.12.2021.

3. Even on merits, it is noticed by the Family Court that

the petitioner was running a jewelry shop and the shop

was admittedly purchased jointly in the name of the wife

and the husband.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:4906 RPFC No. 200074 of 2023

4. It is also found by the Family Court that though there

was a partition deed in existence, as a matter of fact, it

was the husband, who was enjoying the usufructs of the

property.

5. The Family Court has noticed that out of three

children with the petitioner and the respondent, the

second child was mentally challenged and other children

were studying in 6th standard and another one LKG.

6. Having regard to these factors, the Family Court

awarded a sum of `5,000/- to the wife and `3,000/- to

each of the three children. In my view, having regard to

the fact that the petitioner is running a jewelry shop, the

sum of `14,000/- awarded by the Family Court cannot be

said to be in any way arbitrary or irrational. I find no

grounds to interfere with the order of the Family Court,

accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:4906 RPFC No. 200074 of 2023

7. In view of disposal of main petition, IAs-1 and 2 of

2023 do not survive for consideration and are disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE SN